Maybe it's bigger on the inside?
Wait, sorry, wrong show.
We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
You spend the first two years teaching your kid how to walk and talk, and spend the next 16 telling them to sit down and shut up.
I suppose it depends on how you take it.
"Look how funny/stupid I look when I look like a [racist word here]!" rather than "Interesting how I might have looked like with more Asian/African/etc. genes."
I don't know how the app presents it, either. If we assume "neutrally" (i.e., "Give yourself Asian features"), then the racism would be entirely in the user's mind.
The intent of these apps is only in the mind of the developer(s), so unless they come out and tell us, we can only guess. Some will choose to guess the worst case.
I'm confused. The article says the opera was "forced" to tell the story without the official images, but then it quotes the director as saying they were never going to use the images in the first place.
The quote makes it sound like Disney just wanted to flex its muscles and say "NOT ENDORSED BY US" when the opera didn't look for their approval in the first place.
New Xbox Live Message
From: xX Jimmy Hoffa Xx
Message:
That's a nice Spartan you've created there. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it. We can protect him for 800MSP a month.
Perhaps, but that can backfire. His son might have looked at his father as a meddling interloper in his hobby, making him more defiant and more determined to keep spending his time on the computer.
Instead, his father tried to alter his son's experience in his virtual world, to make his son no longer want to play.
Now, his son has found out his father was behind it, so he may end up going back to play anyway, but it does appear at least to have encouraged his son to stop and think about what was going on and why.
I noticed recently that Castle Crashers was released on Steam; it's a fun game but I refuse to buy and play it because of my experience with it on the XBox 360. A friend of mine bought it for his 360 and we'd throw down 4-player on the weekends. His XBox died from the red ring of death and he moved his HDD to his new XBox. We couldn't play multiplayer anymore. Each XBox Live account needed to own the game, or it had to be the original system it was bought for.
Downloadable titles are usually far cheaper and have different expectations than a physical purchase.
It's actually my hope that they will actively go after anyone else who tries this. Rumor has it Microsoft is planning on doing something similar in the next Xbox (although I haven't seen anything describing how it might happen yet).
If they do happen to implement it in the next PlayStation, hopefully word will get out and sales will dry up in response. Although they'll probably just attribute the lack of sales to piracy again....
If only it applied to their universal remotes....
Smurf you.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying the comment "who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD's tactics" is leaving out the fact that he (allegedly) broke into someone else's property to do it. He is not "honestly doing nothing more than making a public statement" -- in fact, the way he did it was fairly dishonest.
I did not defend the charges the NYPD are bringing against him.
Exactly. This artist isn't quite as innocent as Tim would have us believe. You are free to speak your mind; you are not free to break into property to promote that speech.
But, to be sure, I don't believe he's nearly as guilty as the NYPD would have us believe, either.
You leave his private life out of this. If Mike wants to dress up like an MPAA lobbyist and role-play with his partner dressed as a pirate, moaning "Infringe my IP, baby" in ecstasy in the privacy of his own bedroom, that's none of your business.
TechDirt is a successful blog. This manner of connecting with fans only work because there is a substantial following already. For a smaller blog that doesn't have as large a fanbase established, this would never be an appropriate avenue for success.
You don't even have to use an analogy. In this case, the ISP(s) that routed the encrypted file from its source to the defendant also "passed on" the file, so they should also be liable by this ruling, for any and all file transfers on their network.
So, are you saying he must be guilty of something since he's been arrested? Guilty until proven innocent? There must be some evidence against him, otherwise they wouldn't hold him?
Because, you know, a government organization would readily admit its mistake and release any seized or forfeited assets, rather than unlawfully infringe on another's rights, just like they've always done.(SarcMark?)
But pretty much every discovery since then has suggested that they only had strong evidence in their minds...
Re: Re:
Actually, you called it a "weak distinction", not a "big difference".